Jump to content
NHL'94 Forums

Brutus

Members
  • Posts

    2,847
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Everything posted by Brutus

  1. Or I would be willing to package my late 4 & my late 6 for an early 4 & an early 6
  2. Well, anyone who tanks an entire season this year will potentially get high 2nd round pick, and can grab any #1 off a team that has 2 #1's, so in theory, you still could stack your team. But, you'd have to punt an entire season to do so, and it would only last for one season.
  3. Ok, so the protect on trade is basically a draft pick for a round that doesn't run. Losing the protect, loses an actual player you could have "selected" by protecting them. The only reason you trade it for a Round below is because you have no one on your team worth that high of a protect, and at least get the Round 4 pick presumably worth more to your new roster than the guy you would keep, and the team getting the protect has two Round 3 players worth protecting, in theory.
  4. Ok, Question how draft runs in Season 10 next year then. Let's say Round 1, everybody protects a player. Round 2 everyone drafts from the remaining unprotected pool. Round 3 Everyone who has their Round 3 protect, protects a player. Round 4 everyone drafts from the remaining unprotected pool. ETC. HOWEVER, if I trade my Round 3 protect next season for Season 10, do I just not get a Round 3 player, or do I pick at the end of the Round 3 before Round 4? Because then obviously if you trade a protect, it's like trading an actual pick, where as the other way, it would be like trading down in Round 3 type thing. ALSO, do I have the top part right as well?
  5. Ok. I'm hearing multiple things from multiple people, so I think it would be good to clarify the rules before we get too far into the draft, as it already screwed up Labs. Here's what I understand so far: Blitz 09 (this season) This year is an open draft on all rounds, with teams able to trade 5 times, and no future picks/protects able to be moved. Blitz 10 (next season) Round 1 is a protect round. Each team protects one player off their roster, and we start the draft at Round 2 based on records, DNP's ,etc from the players not protected in Round 1. ** You cannot trade your Round 1 protect is also what I heard, and no team can keep two players in Round 1. Round 2 is an open round, and each team can trade that pick or draft someone from the players available. **There are no protects in Round 2 this year. Round 3 is a protect round. You have one protect and can protect one player not yet selected from Round 2 off your team. Now here comes in the issues I don't understand, and would prefer this clarified. #1 Can I trade my Protect in Round 3/5/7, etc to someone else for a pick? Currently, you can't trade Round 1 protects, but have not heard a ruling on after Round 1. #2 IF you can trade protects, that would imply another team has multiple protects now for Round 3, and then can protect two of their remaining players prior to the start of Round 4. #3 IF you can trade for protects, is there a cap on HOW many you can keep (2, 3, 4, etc)? In theory, someone could acquire three Round 3 protects if you dumped enough of your other talent. I also hear talk about drafting a round before protects, and talk of protecting before drafting a round, so obviously confusion runs rampant here. IN ADDITION, there seems to be confusion on IF you have to use your protect, or if you get to draft end of that Round if you waive your protect? So, say I don't have a Round 1 pick this year, and I don't want to use my protect, do I get to draft from the remaining players that weren't protected before Round 2 starts, or is this non-optional?
  6. Delete all this banter or move it out the part from Pearate on to a different thread, so the Round 1 picks aren't cluttered w/ this silliness. Minority dissent is expected. I'm sure we can rise above a few choice french words & get this resolved. I like to go back post drafts & review all the picks, and I'm sure I'm not alone, so IF all this plus MY post here could get moved, that'd be great.
  7. I'm St. Louis and I drafted Hull, so I'm gonna hold w/ them. If he didn't make it to me, I'd swap. Gonna protect him again next year, so you'd have to wait 2 seasons before I'd swap out on the Blues, but would gladly do so then.
  8. Also, are we able to protect MORE than one player in Round 3, Round 5 or Round 7 next season??
  9. Nice jobs by Plabax. He upgraded Round 1 pick 10 slots (protect round next year) & upgarded Round 3 pick 12 slots (protect round next year). I am already picking towards the top of a both rounds, and you cannot keep two protects in one round, so for me, this was not something that made sense to try to do, but was the first thing I thought of when the draft started. Great job bud. Obviously, Plabax will finish ahead of where he's drafting slot is now in those Rounds, so he really upgraded his protect values.
  10. I thought they said something about not having two protects for players from same round, or at least Round 1, to stop that. Should probably clarify on that. Labs, if you lose enough games in B now, you'll have a higher pick than the one you traded away But, SWOS is guaranteed to have a late #1 next season, so he gained a lot by moving up in the draft for next season, as his late Round 1 slot will be voided when he uses his protect to keep the guy he takes this season at 1.11
  11. Removing my pick from the trade block. I'll hold w/ Hull.
  12. No, not this season 9. I was asking got future drafts & protects, meaning season 10
  13. In Blitz, are you allowed to trade future picks or future protects? Also, are we protecting Round 1 next season or Round 2, as no protects this year w/ a fresh start draft.
  14. Well, Umberger is an obvious notch below Hartnell, but not 2 to 3 notches, at least not last year. Both are 32. And 4.6M 3 yrs or 4.75M for 5 years, I would probably not want either from 35 yrs old & on at that money. I gotta imagine by the time Hartnell is 35, unless the cap keeps going up, his final two seasons of that contract at 36 & 37 will be bad for Columbus. My only thoughts are perhaps this is the only time you could dump those last two years and still get something back. I agree they might not have gotten back what you'd want for 4.6M, but maybe there weren't many options on the table w/ 5 years left at 4.75 for Hartnell, but Umberger at 4.6M for 3 years doesn't sound like a sweet deal either.
  15. In the salary cap era, some players contracts start to outweigh the players value and if you can get back a player that plays above his contract's value, you can then hopefully go sign someone at their value as a free agent w/ your cap room, and end up with more talent than if you just had one guy playing less than his contract warrants. Teams like Columbus have hard times signing free agents, so it makes sense for them to want to take on vets w/ talent that might not be the best cap values. Not sure if that's what went on here, but from a glance, that would seem the case to me. Of course, if you don't go sign anyone to replace the talent you lost, then you have a better cap situation, but a much worse team. And, there is always the case to be made if Hartnell is a bad contract or not.
  16. I edited my lines again just a tad in case anyone was pre-editing the ROM.
  17. Yeah, no "we" in there upon review. I was reading on my phone & could have swore I saw that. Not sure if it got "edited out" in one of the many edits in your posts there (not stating intentional, but you've got some re-wording, so it's possible). Of course, my eyes have lied to me before. Rangers come off the weak series vs Montreal, and the Kings have the monster grind out against the Hawks, who are easily the top talented team in the league (not by wide margin, but it's obvious you'd put them #1 for talent). Coming off that, they still beat the Rangers 4-1, w/ NYR only win at 2-1 in their desperation don't sweep me game. Rangers clearly caught Kings off guard w/ their speed in Game 1 & still lost. Somewhere in there should have been a 3-1 score, 2-0 as the Rangers built on their lead with the Kings being forced to take chances (as the Kings did when they lead against the Hawks). But, to point to two calls & state a 4-1 series should have gone the NYR way or made it into a Game 6 or 7 series to me sounds silly. If the Rangers were legit champs, they do something more than what they showed. Kings showed it to me against the Hawks 4 times, and they showed it to me 3 times against the Rangers, and I'll concede the one win against the Rangers as weak. If the Hawks or the Kings played Montreal w/ out Price before the NYR, and the Rangers had to play the Kings or Hawks, the series would have been Hawks vs Kings. The Rangers never make it out of a conference against either of those two teams. That's just my opinion, and as long as the Stanley Cup keeps getting won by either Chicago or LA, it's hard to argue w/ that statement. If the Kings had squeaked by a bunch of weak teams and then lucked out against the Rangers, I'd also give some more validity to your argument, but to me, there is plenty to by in to the West is dominating the East.
  18. PITT MAJOR by Brutus SC1 SC2 Check Line C Mario C Mullen C Mario LW Jagr LW Tocchet LW McEachern RW Stevens RW Francis RW Caufield LD Murphy LD U. Samuelsson LD Murphy RD K. Samuelsson RD Taglianeti RD K. Samuelsson Xtra Tocchet Xtra Mario Extra Jagr PP1 PP2 C Mario C Muller LW Jagr LW Tocchet RW Stevens RW Francis LD Murphy LD Murphy RD K Samuelsson RD Taglianeti Extra Tocchet Extra Mario PK1 PK2 C Mario C Tocchet LW Jagr LW Francis LD Murphy LD U. Samuelsson RD K Samuelsson RD Taglianeti Goalie 1 Barrasso Goalie 2 Wregget
  19. I thought there were some bad timed penalties/non-penalties in the hawks/kings series that went against the hawks at big moment moments & set the series to 3-1. I also feel if the fix were in, it would be for the kings. HUGE market w/ no fan base means it's worth trying to manipulate into getting a fan base in la w/ an extra cup!! BUT, the games too fast to tank for one team. It's hard enough to get them to call it when they are trying to get it right. No way I'd trust a ref to be able to steer it to one team w/out totally risking a complete embarrassment. That talk of a fix is retarded. I also felt stating "we" in reference to the NYR tells you that you are biased on anything you say afterwards, unless you were secretly a real nhl player on the rangers. It's usually the "we" guys going over the top. And finally, Kings always found a way to win all the games & come back from every lead, just about. Give the rangers a goal here or there, or same w/ hawks, and that king team found a way to win. I have no doubt with or without the refs, they were going to win. And despite the score, you can watch hockey and see another team being dominated, as the Rangers were most of that series. The score was being kept a tie by Lundy. Kings were the champs & you could play that playoff season 10 times, & 8 go to them. Maybe one to hawks. Maybe, maybe, maybe nyr squeak one in. That's what I saw watching the games. Maybe "we" had better viewing point on the ice or something??
×
×
  • Create New...